Com-Central.net

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

What to read something outlandish? Check out this DOD PDF report with about 245 pages at:

"Iraqi Perspectives Project, A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam's Senior Leadership".

www.jfcom.mil/newslink...06/ipp.pdf

If you think US intell on Iraq was out in left field, you need to read that report. Some how the SF teams working in the western desert of Iraq cause (my guess based on reading of the report) intell reports that reached Saddam Hussein reporting sightings of US Armor attacking out of Jordan. A few days later, Mr. H. got the idea that three IDF armored divisions with an airborne division plus the US 4th Division was about to attack through Jordan into western Iraq.

You will also learn that the US has a super secret. It must be a super secret because we all here at AFV News didn't know about it until today. CH-47s can AIRLIFT Abrams tanks! Don't believe me, read the report!

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

bsmart

Thanks for the pointer. Right now I am reading 'Cobra II - The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq' It follows the process at the Pentagon/Centcom/ Third Army level. I'm about a third of the way through and it is getting to Colin Powell addressing the U.N. about WMD.

It looks like the two may compliment each other

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

When the Iraqi Minister of Outrageous Remarks was promanent on TV light-hearted souls saved his best quotes. I have one document that is 8 pages of silliness.

I also saved this assessment from stratfor.com and bears repeating of how the West was looking at Saddam looking at the West.

"If Hussein was certain that (1) the United States will launch a war and (2) that he will be defeated, that would be the circumstance under which he would consider exile. He still is not completely certain that the United States will attack -- or at least, that it will attack before the summer. He also is not certain that the United States would defeat him in a war. From where Hussein sits, the United States is afraid to take casualties. His view of history is that ever since Vietnam, the United States has waged its wars in such a way as to prevent or minimize casualties. When U.S. forces started taking casualties, as in Beirut or Somalia, they withdrew. In Afghanistan, the United States avoids casualties by staying close to its strongholds. Regardless of whether this perception is true, this is what Hussein -- and others -- believe about the United States.

Hussein believes he can inflict heavy casualties on the United States. He apparently thinks that using chemical weapons against U.S. forces during an advance on Baghdad, and forcing U.S. troops into house-to-house fighting in the city, will raise the number and fear of more casualties sufficiently that the United States will accept a U.N.-sponsored cease-fire. In his view, Iraqi forces are capable of achieving this. He may not be certain of it, but recall that Hussein is a risk-taker. The probability is high enough that he can inflict casualties and that the United States will retreat in the face of those casualties that he is willing to risk the war rather than accept exile."

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

thanks roy, i am going to check out that report.
never would have thought of the ch-47 airlifiting the abrams, an older skycrane maybe...

saddam--must be nice to live in his world. um, he has some valid thoughts but i dont think they are really relevent to his own situation. he seems to suffer from real memory loss. he took a blood bath fighting iran, he has gotten stomped by the coalition in 1991, bombed often in the interum to the second gulf war. and then he thought that the IDF was going to get involved, a joint u.s./israeli invasion! and who would be taking casaulities in this one??? plus, for israel to cross her borders, the situation is no longer about iraq/wmd's, it would be the apocalypse in the mid east..

Doug_Kibbey

- SHAWN

thanks roy, i am going to check out that report.
never would have thought of the ch-47 airlifiting the abrams, an older skycrane maybe...

Don't waste your time, Shawn...A CH-54 Tarhe (or any subsequent variant now that Erickson has the airframe) couldn't lift even half the weight of an Abrams. A CH-47 (in the Vietnam era) could only lift an M113 if it was offloaded of all stowage, ammo and gunsheld armor (this has been improved upon considerably these days). I watched this process at FSB Fiddler's Green once and the Chinook struggled...and puckered up those blades like a badminton birdie (and rotor wash threw rocks nearly the size of your fist). There are pics of a CH-54 lifting a Sheridan around, and that would have been pretty much the max.
Nothing the wings turn around on will pick up an Abrams...

Roy_A_Lingle

- SHAWN

saddam--must be nice to live in his world.

Trying to live in a world of his own making is how he ended up in jail cell.
When you surround yourself with YES people and you are known for having people killed who do not support your view of things, well.....

- SHAWN

he seems to suffer from real memory loss. he took a blood bath fighting iran, he has gotten stomped by the coalition in 1991, bombed often in the interum to the second gulf war.

Shawn, it's NOT a case of MEMORY LOSS. It's a point of view problem. From your point, yes. But that report explains his point of view and sence he was still in charge, HE DIDN'T take a blood bath fighting Iran and HE DIDN'T get stomped on in 1991.

The US pulled out of Vietnam after lossing 58,000 troops.
Iraq losted 51,000 troops during one battle with Iran.

From his point of view, the US was weak because we gave up.
Iraq was strong because HE WAS STILL IN CHARGE.

One of the hardest things for one human to do is place themself inside the mine of another and under stand that person's point of view of something.

My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

that is so true roy. they always say to know your opponent, would i be wrong in saying that you may be able to know your opponent but you may not always be able to understand him? (sometimes that can be the most important-- understanding)
seems like it is like that is all wars.
shawn

roy, doug, et al.
what is that means of deploying vehicles by airdrop, using the skid out the back of the aircraft, cant remember the initials for it...? has anyone worked with that type of deployment? how is the vehicle secured, etc. how is the impact absorbed? your are dropping very low to the deck but still how does the vehicle take it? the sheridan/track-- how soon from hitting the ground are you up and running again?
shawn

Doug_Kibbey

- SHAWN

roy, doug, et al.
what is that means of deploying vehicles by airdrop, using the skid out the back of the aircraft, cant remember the initials for it...? has anyone worked with that type of deployment? how is the vehicle secured, etc. how is the impact absorbed? your are dropping very low to the deck but still how does the vehicle take it? the sheridan/track-- how soon from hitting the ground are you up and running again?
shawn

Shawn,
I believe you're referring to Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). The vehicle is palletized and prepped more-or-less as for parachute drop. I don't think it's ever been done in combat, and considerable time is required to get up and running again. Hour or two at least, I'd guess. It's a rough way to go, and it's dangerous...for anyone on the ground, and sometimes for the aircraft. (A demo of this procedure went horribly wrong 15 years or so ago, at Bragg, I think, when the C-130 touched down hard, broke it's back, and killed the aircrew in front of the reviewing stand).

RKlaus · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 28, 2006 Posts: 12

Hi,
Looks like I finaly made the jump from the old board. I had a lot of trouble getting this board to let me in.
It is indeed LAPES that you are talking about. Sporty procedure. I did one of the last Sheridan LAPES drops at Pope before the Sheridan went away. The drop is supposed to be made from 5 to 10 feet wheel height, with the deck 4 feet higher. We always tried for the lower end of this at 5 feet, or a bit lower. As the load slides back the tail drops, so the pallet actually doesn't fall too far. The big danger to the Sheridan was not the drop, but the danger that the leading edge of the pallet would dig in and the load tumble.
From the C-130 point of view the big problem was that 42,000 lbs (45,000 for the Sheridan on waivers) would shift the CG well aft as it slid back. The pilot would counter with nose down elevator to compensate. Then the tank would fall off the back of the ramp, and instantly your CG was back to normal. If the pilot didn't anticipate the shift perfectly and bring the elevator back up you'd bounce the nose wheeel Very embarrasing.
Good times!

"If it was easy they'd get civilians to do it."

Robert Klaus

SHAWN · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 31, 2006 Posts: 484

thanks guys,

doug-- did you ever take part in any LAPES exercises or would that be after your time?

robert-- you were aircrew on the C-130?

RKlaus · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 28, 2006 Posts: 12

Shawn,
Flight Engineer on C-130E with the 40th and 2nd Airlift Squadrons at Pope. It was a great experience, I'm just sorry I'm to old to still be at it.

Robert

Doug_Kibbey

- SHAWN

thanks guys,

doug-- did you ever take part in any LAPES exercises or would that be after your time?

robert-- you were aircrew on the C-130?

Shawn,
Nope, never was...and wouldn't have been. Crews would have been transported separately, of course...either already being on the ground or inserted or dropped in before/after the fact. LAPES'ing is an Air Force gig and we would have just been the addressees. It's an interesting capability to have, but as a practical matter, I can't envision armor being really delivered this way or by parachute in 99.9% of combat operations. Better to secure or create a landing field and drive off....(I'm thinking of calling this novel concept "Air-Mech Strike" Laughing

)

bsmart

- Doug_Kibbey

- SHAWN

thanks guys,

doug-- did you ever take part in any LAPES exercises or would that be after your time?

robert-- you were aircrew on the C-130?

Shawn,
Nope, never was...and wouldn't have been. Crews would have been transported separately, of course...either already being on the ground or inserted or dropped in before/after the fact. LAPES'ing is an Air Force gig and we would have just been the addressees. It's an interesting capability to have, but as a practical matter, I can't envision armor being really delivered this way or by parachute in 99.9% of combat operations. Better to secure or create a landing field and drive off....(I'm thinking of calling this novel concept "Air-Mech Strike" lol )

And of course the primary vehicle used for this 'Air-Mech Strike' would be named after an airborne hero

I'm thinking of

General Matthew Ridgway

bsmart

- bsmart

- Doug_Kibbey

- SHAWN

thanks guys,

doug-- did you ever take part in any LAPES exercises or would that be after your time?

robert-- you were aircrew on the C-130?

Shawn,
Nope, never was...and wouldn't have been. Crews would have been transported separately, of course...either already being on the ground or inserted or dropped in before/after the fact. LAPES'ing is an Air Force gig and we would have just been the addressees. It's an interesting capability to have, but as a practical matter, I can't envision armor being really delivered this way or by parachute in 99.9% of combat operations. Better to secure or create a landing field and drive off....(I'm thinking of calling this novel concept "Air-Mech Strike" lol )

And of course the primary vehicle used for this 'Air-Mech Strike' would be named after an airborne hero

I'm thinking of

General Matthew Ridgway

What - Did you think I was going to say GAVIN

Smile

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big